PDA

View Full Version : What if...? (technology to advance firearms acceptance in society)


Alaric
11-06-2009, 7:52 PM
Brainstorm here, bear with.

First, the problem. Guns are seen as problematic by some people in society, the "gun grabbers", or "anti's". If you accept that as a given, in that they will always focus on the implement instead of the intent, then maybe that can become a focus for a resolution. Maybe if we can identify and resolve some of the issues with the implement itself, we can better counter their argument, and create a basis for "implement protection".

Second, the abstract. Technology as a means to overcome obstacles is a widely accepted idea. When technology creates problems, other technology is commonly seen as the answer to those problems. What if a technology could be developed to address some of the specific issues commonly adressed by anti's in their attacks on firearms technology? What would those specific problems be and what would the correlating technological redresses be?

Issue 1: Guns can be used in places inappropriate for them, commonly called "sensitive areas", like school grounds, airports, airplanes, etc. Could a technology be developed to render guns unusable within a "sensitive area"? Perhaps a device with an RF chip that renders the gun inoperable if within range of an RF transponder that emits a certain code. What would the drawbacks of such technology be and would it even be workable?

Issue 2: Guns can be dangerous in the hands of children or the unprepared. Kids kill themselves accidentally with found guns occasionally. Could a gun be developed that could somehow detect the pheromones released from an adult that would render it inoperable to a child who doesn't yet create and release such pheromones? Such "sniffer tech" already exists, how hard could it be to implement into a firearms design?

Issue 3: Guns and ammunition are being attacked as bad for the environment. Lead free ammo and polymer guns have already been developed, but what about creating guns and ammo of entirely natural and biodegradable components? Would it be possible to build a gun out of materials that could decompose within, say 15 years in a natural environment, and rounds likewise? Would a wood and ceramic gun and ammo be possible? Would the obvious issues with metal detection of weapons in sensitive areas render this idea unsound?

Please dissect and discuss.

Scratch705
11-06-2009, 8:16 PM
Issue 1: this will be an issue because that means anyone that just happens to walk into this "safe" zone will now be defenseless.

Issue 2: until we have nanotech, implementation on a handgun would be near impractical.

Issue 3: Guns that break down after 15 years? say good bye to C&R's then. for ammo this would also destroy all surplus market for ammo once implemented. This would also mean that rarer calibers would become non-existant since no one can stockpile ammo for the future since they would be unusable in 15 years.

Alaric
11-06-2009, 8:20 PM
Issue 1: this will be an issue because that means anyone that just happens to walk into this "safe" zone will now be defenseless.

Issue 2: until we have nanotech, implementation on a handgun would be near impractical.

Issue 3: Guns that break down after 15 years? say good bye to C&R's then. for ammo this would also destroy all surplus market for ammo once implemented. This would also mean that rarer calibers would become non-existant since no one can stockpile ammo for the future since they would be unusable in 15 years.

For issue 1, wouldn't that also render the bad guys defenseless?

Issue 2, we have nanotech.

Issue 3, I should've been more specific, in that I meant biodegradable in a natural environment - not in your safe or another controlled environment.

a1c
11-06-2009, 8:21 PM
Regarding #3:

No need to legislate to phase out traditional ammo. I would rather like that most shooters and hunters picked up their brass and shells. Unfortunately a lot of them act completely entitled and it doesn't even occur to them to clean after themselves, probably because when they were growing up, their dad didn't pick up his brass or shells either.

I find it shameful to find public ranges littered by brass and shotgun shells and cans and other random targets. That doesn't project a good image of gun owners.

bwiese
11-06-2009, 8:45 PM
You are bringing up stuff that will get legislated in that won't die.

You'll end up with Roster II needing its own fight.

RKBA does not demand "safe" handguns.

pontiacpratt
11-06-2009, 8:50 PM
For issue 1, wouldn't that also render the bad guys defenseless?

Issue 2, we have nanotech.

Issue 3, I should've been more specific, in that I meant biodegradable in a natural environment - not in your safe or another controlled environment.

#1 Because we all know that the criminal will buy guns that are fitted with the "Failsafe" I'm also comforted that Guns are really the only thing that are not reliant on computers to function.
Bad guy sets off a EMP and all the "Good Guns" are disabled and he's good to go.

Walker
11-06-2009, 8:53 PM
Issue 1: Guns can be used in places inappropriate for them, commonly called "sensitive areas", like school grounds, airports, airplanes, etc. Could a technology be developed to render guns unusable within a "sensitive area"? Perhaps a device with an RF chip that renders the gun inoperable if within range of an RF transponder that emits a certain code. What would the drawbacks of such technology be and would it even be workable?




Issue 1: this will be an issue because that means anyone that just happens to walk into this "safe" zone will now be defenseless.



As Scratch705 said you will be defenseless. The problem is what keeps someone from using a different kind of weapon. Or what keeps them from getting their hands on a gun with no chip or what keeps them from modifying a weapon with a chip so it works no matter what?

hawk84
11-06-2009, 8:54 PM
who decides where is inappropriate- pretty soon everywhere is, the entire point is to be able to resist your own government as a last resort, if the gov can make your gun useless---whats the point

kids should have a right to defend themselves as well as anyone else

i want my gun to last until it has no rifling left,

Alaric
11-06-2009, 10:26 PM
You are bringing up stuff that will get legislated in that won't die.

You'll end up with Roster II needing its own fight.

RKBA does not demand "safe" handguns.

You make a good point.

I guess I just see firearms as the crossbows of this era, soon to be eclipsed by more powerful and utilitarian weapons. The bans in place are no different than the bans that were implemented in medieval Europe against the crossbow.

The Medieval Crossbow is Banned!
The Magna Carta sought to ban foreign crossbowmen in order to defend the realm but a Pope had tried to ban this weapon even before this time! The devastating effect of the crossbow and the wounds it could inflict were reflected by these Medieval weapon bans. Article 51 of the Magna Carta stated the following:

" As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign born knights, crossbow men, sergeants and mercenary soldiers who have come with horses and arms to the kingdom's hurt."

In 1139 Pope Innocent II and the Church of the Lateran Council issued a judgement against the use of the crossbow by Christians against Christians. The Medieval crossbow was referred to as "the deadly art, hated by God, of crossbowmen..."

The Medieval crossbow was viewed as an abomination but the weapon bans failed to stop the rise of crossbows, they were simply ignored, and the crossbow continued to remain a favoured weapon across both Europe and England.
http://www.castles.me.uk/medieval-crossbow.htm

Perhaps my faith just lies more in the power of technology to overcome our current problems than in the power of politics or the judiciary to make right.

Sniper3142
11-07-2009, 3:51 PM
To the OP,

I don't agree with ANYTHING you said or proposed.

PERIOD.

JustGone
11-07-2009, 3:58 PM
Addressing the biodegradable issue. Most guns are made of metal..which is natural to the environment. If you leave metal out in nature it will decompose. This is called rust, rust is nature way of taking back the metal =)

berto
11-07-2009, 4:52 PM
Your technological devices are subject to countermeasures that render them ineffective.

My rights shouldn't need modification to be exercised.

Turo
11-07-2009, 5:10 PM
Issue 1: Guns can be used in places inappropriate for them, commonly called "sensitive areas", like school grounds, airports, airplanes, etc. Could a technology be developed to render guns unusable within a "sensitive area"? Perhaps a device with an RF chip that renders the gun inoperable if within range of an RF transponder that emits a certain code. What would the drawbacks of such technology be and would it even be workable?
As long as the technology to make weapons exists, you will never be able to do this. Case in point, my grandfather owns a machine shop that, given enough time, I could easily create my own single shot pistol or rifle, or create a fully automatic machine gun with some difficulty. Basically, if there exist mills and lathes capable of cutting metal, the technology you suggest is utterly useless.

Issue 2: Guns can be dangerous in the hands of children or the unprepared. Kids kill themselves accidentally with found guns occasionally. Could a gun be developed that could somehow detect the pheromones released from an adult that would render it inoperable to a child who doesn't yet create and release such pheromones? Such "sniffer tech" already exists, how hard could it be to implement into a firearms design?

I don't know of any pheromones, or anything for that matter, that are given off by people aged 18 and over and not by people under that age. Remember, 18 is just a number decided on by people that legally defines someone as an adult. Something that would be very useful in decreasing the amount of children accidentally injured by firearms, and that is knowledge. Parents should (and many do) teach children to respect firearms and to not play with them while parents are not around.

Issue 3: Guns and ammunition are being attacked as bad for the environment. Lead free ammo and polymer guns have already been developed, but what about creating guns and ammo of entirely natural and biodegradable components? Would it be possible to build a gun out of materials that could decompose within, say 15 years in a natural environment, and rounds likewise? Would a wood and ceramic gun and ammo be possible? Would the obvious issues with metal detection of weapons in sensitive areas render this idea unsound?

Guns and ammo are not "bad" for the environment. Lead is a naturally occurring metal found in the ground. Granted brass is not naturally occurring (being a mix of tin and copper) but it is not much worse for the environment than lead or any other metal. The problem with making guns from polymers/wood/ceramics is that those materials lack the properties that make metal a perfect material for guns. The forces and shock waves created by firing ammo are easily absorbed by metal guns, but would easily break brittle materials like ceramics. Polymers are already being used in many gun parts, but they aren't suitable for barrels or bolts because they aren't tough enough to take that kind of abuse.

Please dissect and discuss.

Responses bolded. :)

a1c
11-07-2009, 6:02 PM
Addressing the biodegradable issue. Most guns are made of metal..which is natural to the environment. If you leave metal out in nature it will decompose. This is called rust, rust is nature way of taking back the metal =)

True, but they can affect the soil balance. Actually, even those bio clays made by White Flyers can seriously affect the pH of the ground for years as the degrade.

I don't think gun materials are an issue, it's recycling that is. Eventually fun manufacturers will put in place recycling programs like car manufacturers are doing now. As for ammo, environmentally friendlier products will slowly take over. Doesn't really worry me, as tree-hugging as I can be for other things.

Not a major issue as far as I'm concerned.

audihenry
11-08-2009, 12:16 AM
#1 Because we all know that the criminal will buy guns that are fitted with the "Failsafe" I'm also comforted that Guns are really the only thing that are not reliant on computers to function.
Bad guy sets off a EMP and all the "Good Guns" are disabled and he's good to go.

You're making a huge assumption: that all crime is committed with black market/illegal/etc. weapons. The case is, a lot of it happens with ordinary stolen guns, guns lent to people or reported lost, and through other such creative ways.

Not every person who pulls the trigger is hooked up with a gangster armorer.

pontiacpratt
11-08-2009, 7:46 AM
You're making a huge assumption: that all crime is committed with black market/illegal/etc. weapons. The case is, a lot of it happens with ordinary stolen guns, guns lent to people or reported lost, and through other such creative ways.

Not every person who pulls the trigger is hooked up with a gangster armorer.

It's thinking like yours that leads to weapon bans. why not just ban all guns outright. Someone steals a legal gun commits a crime, it could have been prevented if that legal gun didn't exist.
They tried your idea about a electronic kill switch for law enforcement. If the Baddy took the cops gun it wouldn't shoot because of the secret decoder ring that the cop was wearing. That didn't last long. Electronics are not 100% reliable especially RF. I wouldn't want my life to depend on whether or not the wiring in my gun decides to work or not. Some people don't trust auto-loading pistols to their lives, they use revolvers. Some times simple is safe.:D

Rob454
11-08-2009, 8:09 AM
Issue 1: this will be an issue because that means anyone that just happens to walk into this "safe" zone will now be defenseless.

Issue 2: until we have nanotech, implementation on a handgun would be near impractical.

Issue 3: Guns that break down after 15 years? say good bye to C&R's then. for ammo this would also destroy all surplus market for ammo once implemented. This would also mean that rarer calibers would become non-existant since no one can stockpile ammo for the future since they would be unusable in 15 years.

1. Yeah you are right but everyone walking in that area is now defenseless. granted if the guy has a "old" gun then everyone else is screwed. The only way this is possible is if they pass a law ( here we go) that everyone has to retrofit their guns with this technology. once installed it cannot be reversed.
GOOD LUCK getting that to even pass much less actually be implemented.
Guns are gonna be around in one way or another. hell a lot of crime isn't even done with a gun.

2. nanotech is here just not in a widely avalilable quantity to civilian world. At least not right now. Most likely its ebing tested and worked on in some crazy underground lab in Alaska. Right next to the little green men from mars.

3. Guns breaking down after 15 years? They better be cheap then since youre basically taking x amount of $$ and flushing it down a 15 year toilet.
That would be a hard one to do.

Im sure ceramic guns exist right now and they're in a prototype stage. If you can use ceramics to bring in a space shuttle they can take the heat. They just have to work on taking the shock.
Most likely you will probably NEVER see a full ceramic weapon for sale to the civilian world. Way too many complications. But then again some guy is probably gonna make a ceramic detector machine..

I think a lot of the stuff you ask about is gonna happen in the future but not in my lifetime. Once im dead I dotn really care what weapons they make.

M. Sage
11-08-2009, 9:44 AM
For issue 1, wouldn't that also render the bad guys defenseless?

Issue 2, we have nanotech.

Issue 3, I should've been more specific, in that I meant biodegradable in a natural environment - not in your safe or another controlled environment.

Any technology that a person can build can be defeated by another person with enough skill, luck or cleverness, so no, it would not render the bad guys "defenseless". For that matter, "unarmed" doesn't always mean "has no gun".

Issue 2 - I'll not have a "safety" device on any of my guns that could make even possibly make them fail to go bang when I want them to. I am the safety device.

Issue 3 - hell with that. See my answer to #2. I take my guns outdoors and use them there, sometimes for long periods of time. This will affect reliability and I won't have that.

GrizzlyGuy
11-08-2009, 10:53 AM
First, the problem. Guns are seen as problematic by some people in society, the "gun grabbers", or "anti's". If you accept that as a given, in that they will always focus on the implement instead of the intent, then maybe that can become a focus for a resolution. Maybe if we can identify and resolve some of the issues with the implement itself, we can better counter their argument, and create a basis for "implement protection".

Sarah Thompson's psychiatric analysis of anti-gun behavior suggests that technology wouldn't be able to solve the problem because of the defense mechanisms (in the psychiatric sense) that some of the anti-gunners use to justify their feelings and beliefs:

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

It's an interesting read. An excerpt:

"The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day"... What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them. In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun, so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him."

If she's right, then no amount of technology, or other solutions targeted at the implement itself, would change the perceptions of this type of anti-gunner. Who knows, that type may even make up the majority of the anti-gun population(?).

Astana
11-08-2009, 1:04 PM
Per the lead content in ammunition, I know of at least one range where only steel and bismuth shot is allowed b/c of the specific environmental impact. Pacific Rod and Reel Club in San Francisco was ordered by Water Control Board to get the lead out (literally) b/c of it's impact on the city's drinking water and the wildlife in the area. Don't know if that's an isolated phenomenon or not.

Asphodel
11-08-2009, 2:51 PM
Alaric,

Your 'brain storm' is running pretty much exactly contrary to 'common sense'.

You appear to be theorising some form of 'science fiction technology' in an attempt to address a problem which cannot be addressed by technology, except......possibly....in the ultimate 'science fiction nightmare' totalitarian society. Quite a few versions of this general idea can be found in science fiction stories and movies, with a bit of looking.

The 'real world' situation requires some way to address the socialisation of human beings. Try this as a question.....I haven't an answer, to be sure, but at least I can give a try at finding the right questions to ask.....anyway, try this question.....

'What social influences will cause young men to be willing to commit violent crimes, when they know, or reasonably should know, that involvement in a 'crime demographic' will almost certainly ensure that they will spend the majority of their lives as 'slave labour' in the prison system?'

Now, if you can find a plausible answer to the first question, try this next one......

'If these influences can be analysed and understood, does some realistic, practical way exist, to counter them, and to replace them with socially beneficial influences?'

Here's a hint......this is a purely theoretical question, of course.....

What if some organised crime delivery service got a wrong address, and you had a crate of, say, AK47 rifles, and a crate of rounds for them, delivered to your door. Would you feel compelled to hand them out to your friends, to be used in crimes, or use one to commit a crime yourself?

If not, why not?

cheers

Carla

Hayashi Killian
11-08-2009, 4:00 PM
Issue #1: Ahahaha, no way. People like myself (that work in security) would have all kinds of ways to kick in or disable those failsafes. This means (potentially): disabling of cop/mil firearms, enabling BGs/others to use them in an otherwise "safe" area, and more. Even with RF signals I can think of a few dozen ways to achieve either goal. So no, it wouldn't work.

Issue #2: Not without nanotech and micro components that can be built into the grips without a noticeable change. Also easily defeated.

Issue #3: This is doable, but by using different manufacturing components and materials. Biodegradable, however, does not work. Biodegradable components start degrading as soon as they're introduced to an environment where it can happen (anywhere with heat and moisture). So even in your safe they'd start breaking down, and whenever you'd take them out to the range or elsewhere it would happen faster. Parts would break faster and the materials to make them this way would be more expensive.

pretz
11-08-2009, 4:22 PM
1) Disabling guns in "sensitve" areas is completely contrary to the concept of the innate right to preserve the life and safety of Innocents. Disabling firearms at, say, a school will not stop a knife attack.

2) I would pay huge amounts to own a gun that only I could fire. We are on the brink with fingerprint ID. It exists in some models of door locks, but needs refinement to be practical for guns.

3) Lead contamination by ammo is bogus. Lead does not migrate easily, and usually, must be handled and ingested to pose a hazard. It may be possible for a range in a marshland to pollute groundwater, but that should be determined by some exacting scientific study, and not just assumed. Likewise, animals ingesting lead from gut piles or unretrieved kills is possible, but needs some scientific scrutiny, rather than assumption.

Scratch705
11-08-2009, 5:03 PM
3) Lead contamination by ammo is bogus. Lead does not migrate easily, and usually, must be handled and ingested to pose a hazard. It may be possible for a range in a marshland to pollute groundwater, but that should be determined by some exacting scientific study, and not just assumed. Likewise, animals ingesting lead from gut piles or unretrieved kills is possible, but needs some scientific scrutiny, rather than assumption.

i thought this was verified due to the fact that many ranges that the military operates are now closed and are under hazmat cleaning due to the large amount of lead/brass that are left over from the thousands of rounds fired in those areas?

pretz
11-08-2009, 6:29 PM
i thought this was verified due to the fact that many ranges that the military operates are now closed and are under hazmat cleaning due to the large amount of lead/brass that are left over from the thousands of rounds fired in those areas?

I am not sure.

I thought the military range clean ups were for possible unexploded ordinance?
Also, are the range clean ups specifically for lead, or for rounds that use radioactive elements? Is depleted uranium ammunition used at military ranges?

Alaric
11-08-2009, 6:47 PM
Lots of good responses here, thanks all.

I'm not really surprised that a few people seemed to read a nefarious intent into my original post that caused a strong backlash.

My intent (on the surface) was to get people thinking about emerging technologies and ways to combine existing technologies with firearms tech to create seemingly reasonable solutions to the problems anti's commonly cite.

I have concerns about tech being used in combination with guns, either by antis or in other ways. That's why I want to talk about it. I want us to be on top of what might be coming down the road, so we can work to mitigate any damage it might cause to our freedoms and our tools.

The examples I gave in my OP were fairly ludicrous to anyone reasonably thoughtful and informed about firearms and the 2nd Amd. movement. They were pretty easily attacked and shown to be ludicrous. As Bill quickly implied, the examples I gave might seem perfectly reasonable and "progressive" concepts to anti's spurring them to legislate. That wasn't the point. The point was that technology continues to evolve, guns will continue to evolve, and how our rights continue to evolve will be dependent on our defense of them in the face of these evolving scenarios. If we don't discuss them now, we may be caught with our proverbial pants down when these techs come to market and legislation is enacted to "deal" with them in some way.

Just as the Pope outlawed crossbows (ineffectually) in Medieval Europe, governments will continue to have kneejerk reactions to our weapons of choice and will seek to ban them. This is practically human nature. Change is scary, and people must be reigned in, in the eyes of the anti's.

Technology can ultimately help and hurt our cause, sometimes in the least expected ways. Did the Chinese have any idea their invention of gunpowder for fireworks could ultimately lead to the amazing array of guns available today, all based on their technology?

When it comes right down to it though, guns (functionally) are ok for now, much like crossbows were ok back in Medieval Europe. What I really want is a phaser. And a flying car. Buts that's another thread.

Regulus
11-08-2009, 6:55 PM
For the sake of argument:

Issue 1: Guns can be used in places inappropriate for them, commonly called "sensitive areas", like school grounds, airports, airplanes, etc. Could a technology be developed to render guns unusable within a "sensitive area"? Perhaps a device with an RF chip that renders the gun inoperable if within range of an RF transponder that emits a certain code. What would the drawbacks of such technology be and would it even be workable?

If, this could be done and could not be defeated, one concern is that RF transponders could be setup to cover the entire country, though only activated in sensitive area's. If one wanted, I would guess they could deactivate all RF Chips, rendering all guns across the country inoperable. Not good if an invading force (or domestic one for that matter) could "Turn Off" all the guns in the country.


Issue 2: Guns can be dangerous in the hands of children or the unprepared. Kids kill themselves accidentally with found guns occasionally. Could a gun be developed that could somehow detect the pheromones released from an adult that would render it inoperable to a child who doesn't yet create and release such pheromones? Such "sniffer tech" already exists, how hard could it be to implement into a firearms design?

How would I teach my children how to shoot if they can't fire the gun?


Issue 3: Guns and ammunition are being attacked as bad for the environment. Lead free ammo and polymer guns have already been developed, but what about creating guns and ammo of entirely natural and biodegradable components? Would it be possible to build a gun out of materials that could decompose within, say 15 years in a natural environment, and rounds likewise? Would a wood and ceramic gun and ammo be possible? Would the obvious issues with metal detection of weapons in sensitive areas render this idea unsound?

Ummm, I'm not sure how to respond to this one.

xibunkrlilkidsx
11-09-2009, 8:02 AM
Brainstorm here, bear with.

First, the problem. Guns are seen as problematic by some people in society, the "gun grabbers", or "anti's". If you accept that as a given, in that they will always focus on the implement instead of the intent, then maybe that can become a focus for a resolution. Maybe if we can identify and resolve some of the issues with the implement itself, we can better counter their argument, and create a basis for "implement protection".

Second, the abstract. Technology as a means to overcome obstacles is a widely accepted idea. When technology creates problems, other technology is commonly seen as the answer to those problems. What if a technology could be developed to address some of the specific issues commonly adressed by anti's in their attacks on firearms technology? What would those specific problems be and what would the correlating technological redresses be?

Issue 1: Guns can be used in places inappropriate for them, commonly called "sensitive areas", like school grounds, airports, airplanes, etc. Could a technology be developed to render guns unusable within a "sensitive area"? Perhaps a device with an RF chip that renders the gun inoperable if within range of an RF transponder that emits a certain code. What would the drawbacks of such technology be and would it even be workable?

Any technology made by man can be defeated. It only takes a matter of time before someone learns a way to defeat them.

Issue 2: Guns can be dangerous in the hands of children or the unprepared. Kids kill themselves accidentally with found guns occasionally. Could a gun be developed that could somehow detect the pheromones released from an adult that would render it inoperable to a child who doesn't yet create and release such pheromones? Such "sniffer tech" already exists, how hard could it be to implement into a firearms design?

Better parenting, we had firearms when i was young but my dad sat me down showed me what it was, which i knew it was a gun anyways, showed me what to do if i saw it out. and than took me to the shooting range and fired it, which scared me to death with the noise, i was like 8. i must be a freaking miracle. my parents had weapons i played violent video games and yet i havent gone on a shooting spree.

Issue 3: Guns and ammunition are being attacked as bad for the environment. Lead free ammo and polymer guns have already been developed, but what about creating guns and ammo of entirely natural and biodegradable components? Would it be possible to build a gun out of materials that could decompose within, say 15 years in a natural environment, and rounds likewise? Would a wood and ceramic gun and ammo be possible? Would the obvious issues with metal detection of weapons in sensitive areas render this idea unsound?

Ive heard of ammunition as "bad" fing vultures. but i dont understand or havent seen any argument as the gun its self being bad for the enviornment, or are they implying that the gun is a tool to destroying the enviornment becasue of the ammo being shot? With the advent of lead free ammo i dont think the antis can really complain about destruction of enviornment. but yet again you cant fix stupid.

Please dissect and discuss.


bold.

M. D. Van Norman
11-09-2009, 1:41 PM
What would you do about the millions of perfectly functional antique firearms?

wash
11-09-2009, 2:44 PM
This is dumb. If I were a crook and guns worked only when they were not in a gun safe RF field, I would get a gun without that garbage and a RF generator so that people couldn't shoot me.

This is a dumb idea.

This is like the cops in Super Bad wishing that the entire world was covered in semen so that they would have a chance to catch people.